5 ms·

This is the beginning of the end for America. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with what someone says, a free society depends on freedom of expression

by kevwil 6y ago

This is the beginning of the end for America. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with what someone says, a free society depends on freedom of expression. It's the first right in the Bill of Rights for a good reason. Layers and layers of legal loopholes make politically biased corporate censorship perfectly legal. I weep for those whose livelihood depends on social media and e-commerce, because they now must live in fear of having their lives destroyed for expressing an opinion. Or for no reason at all.

MrMan 6y ago
boohoo - if I have to be afraid of half the country putting me on a kill list because of what they read on social media, then people who peddle poison via social media - including the social media firms themselves - should be as uncomfortable as me and my family.
- alboy 6y ago
  To me, the worldview where half the population of the country are mindless zombies that can be remotely controlled through their social media feed and need to be shepherded by Uncle Faang just to prevent them from killing people is even bleaker than GP's perspective.
eastbayjake 6y ago
This is a really bad take. This country has never accepted calls for violent overthrow of our democratic system as "freedom of expression", and that's a view that's been upheld by all three branches of government across all eras of our history from the founding (Shays Rebellion?) through the Civil War (which definitively settled that armed rebellion is not a permissible way to settle political differences) through World War I (which defined our current laws about sedition and restrictions on the freedoms in the First Amendment) to the present day. You don't have a right to force anyone else -- individuals or private corporations -- to amplify your views, and you certainly don't have a right to incite violence or rebellion even on your own dime. EDIT: This would be a less bad take if Parler had been booted just because people on the platform voted for Trump, but to be clear: Parler was booted because it was used to organize an armed rebellion with the explicit goal of finding and executing members of Congress certifying a democratic vote, and its users have been encouraging people to feed Democrats' families into woodchippers while making them watch.
- Svettie 6y ago
  No one is defending calls for violent overthrow, but typically we hold the people that have actually committed the acts responsible. Here, we're shifting the responsibility a level above with the sentiment that "this happened on your platform, so you have a duty to moderate". The kicker is that these tech giants employed the polar opposite of this philosophy for the majority of their existence to eschew as much responsibility as possible for their users' content. Let's see. If I go and organize a violent insurrection using GMail, what does Google need to do to comply with it's own philosophy here? It seems that it needs to start scanning all emails for inciting violence and send them to a moderation queue. Of course, it's never going to do any of that, because unlike Parler it doesn't have any overlords holding it by the neck. Google, Apple, and Amazon like to do whatever they can get away with when it comes to anti-competitive practices, and enjoy the protections granted to them as private entities. On the other hand, this shows that they're willing to also take unilateral action to silence millions of people, based on nothing more than a whim and a holier-than-thou attitude. There's a messy contradiction here. They're not subject to having to abide by the 1st amendment because they're private companies, but in practice they're in control of the majority of public discourse. This is a big problem. And this returns me to what I think was a big point in the article. The response to any free-speech concerns has been: "if you don't like Facebook or Google's policies, you're free to create your own." But the sway of FB/Google's policies is no longer just over their own content, but also the platforms they manage. Which as it turns out, form the majority of the infrastructure of the internet.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > This country has never accepted calls for violent overthrow of our democratic system as "freedom of expression" This is literally how the US were born, cf. The Declaration of Independance. I'm fairly certain King George was praised by a majority.
kickopotomus 6y ago
> Layers and layers of legal loopholes make politically biased corporate censorship perfectly legal. What loopholes? The 1st amendment protects you from being persecuted by the government for your speech. It does not require private entities to publish, promote, transmit, or broadcast your speech. Similarly, discrimination is legal in the US. It is only illegal to discriminate against members of protected classes on the basis of them being members of those protected classes. Political affiliation is not a protected class. Anyone that wants to spout off abhorrent things on the internet is free to do so. However, no private entity can be forced to allow such behavior. You do not have a right to have your tweet published by Twitter. You do not have a right to store your bits on an Amazon server.

by kevwil 6y ago

MrMan 6y ago

boohoo - if I have to be afraid of half the country putting me on a kill list because of what they read on social media, then people who peddle poison via social media - including the social media firms themselves - should be as uncomfortable as me and my family.

alboy 6y ago
To me, the worldview where half the population of the country are mindless zombies that can be remotely controlled through their social media feed and need to be shepherded by Uncle Faang just to prevent them from killing people is even bleaker than GP's perspective.

eastbayjake 6y ago

This is a really bad take. This country has never accepted calls for violent overthrow of our democratic system as "freedom of expression", and that's a view that's been upheld by all three branches of government across all eras of our history from the founding (Shays Rebellion?) through the Civil War (which definitively settled that armed rebellion is not a permissible way to settle political differences) through World War I (which defined our current laws about sedition and restrictions on the freedoms in the First Amendment) to the present day. You don't have a right to force anyone else -- individuals or private corporations -- to amplify your views, and you certainly don't have a right to incite violence or rebellion even on your own dime. EDIT: This would be a less bad take if Parler had been booted just because people on the platform voted for Trump, but to be clear: Parler was booted because it was used to organize an armed rebellion with the explicit goal of finding and executing members of Congress certifying a democratic vote, and its users have been encouraging people to feed Democrats' families into woodchippers while making them watch.

Svettie 6y ago
No one is defending calls for violent overthrow, but typically we hold the people that have actually committed the acts responsible. Here, we're shifting the responsibility a level above with the sentiment that "this happened on your platform, so you have a duty to moderate". The kicker is that these tech giants employed the polar opposite of this philosophy for the majority of their existence to eschew as much responsibility as possible for their users' content. Let's see. If I go and organize a violent insurrection using GMail, what does Google need to do to comply with it's own philosophy here? It seems that it needs to start scanning all emails for inciting violence and send them to a moderation queue. Of course, it's never going to do any of that, because unlike Parler it doesn't have any overlords holding it by the neck. Google, Apple, and Amazon like to do whatever they can get away with when it comes to anti-competitive practices, and enjoy the protections granted to them as private entities. On the other hand, this shows that they're willing to also take unilateral action to silence millions of people, based on nothing more than a whim and a holier-than-thou attitude. There's a messy contradiction here. They're not subject to having to abide by the 1st amendment because they're private companies, but in practice they're in control of the majority of public discourse. This is a big problem. And this returns me to what I think was a big point in the article. The response to any free-speech concerns has been: "if you don't like Facebook or Google's policies, you're free to create your own." But the sway of FB/Google's policies is no longer just over their own content, but also the platforms they manage. Which as it turns out, form the majority of the infrastructure of the internet.
alacombe 6y ago
> This country has never accepted calls for violent overthrow of our democratic system as "freedom of expression" This is literally how the US were born, cf. The Declaration of Independance. I'm fairly certain King George was praised by a majority.

kickopotomus 6y ago

> Layers and layers of legal loopholes make politically biased corporate censorship perfectly legal. What loopholes? The 1st amendment protects you from being persecuted by the government for your speech. It does not require private entities to publish, promote, transmit, or broadcast your speech. Similarly, discrimination is legal in the US. It is only illegal to discriminate against members of protected classes on the basis of them being members of those protected classes. Political affiliation is not a protected class. Anyone that wants to spout off abhorrent things on the internet is free to do so. However, no private entity can be forced to allow such behavior. You do not have a right to have your tweet published by Twitter. You do not have a right to store your bits on an Amazon server.